Author
Topic: straddle (Read 1435 times)

With live straddles being allowed, would you let someone straddle, if the straddle amount puts them all in?

example, 10/20 limit game, blinds are 5/10 and the UTG starts the hand with 20. Would you let him straddle and be all in for 20, or would you consider this just a blind raise, since he doesnt have an option to raise? In limit, it makes a difference whether its a straddle or just a blind raise, because a straddle would allow that betting round to go 5 bets. If it were just a blind raise and not a straddle, it would just be a regular betting round with 4 bets.

Also, was hearing from some players, that they were aware of a rule that you cannot straddle unless you start the hand with at least 5 bets. Using the same example as above 10/20 limit game, they are saying a player must have at least 50 behind to straddle to 20 UTG. Doesnt seem right to me, if a player starts the hand with 30 or 40, why cant they straddle to 20? Ive never heard of this, and wondering if anyone else has heard of this being implemented anywhere?

I'm not sure I agree. Why not allow the all-in to straddle? The important factor, in my opinion is that the straddle is blind. That's what separates the live straddle from a blind raise. My short answer is allow the straddle as long as the all-in amount is the 100% required to straddle. I'm not in favor of only allowing a raise if that player can stand to be reraised. Besides, how can we tell that player that he's not allowed to get maximum chips into the pot if he chooses?

Besides, how can we tell that player that he's not allowed to get maximum chips into the pot if he chooses?

You totally lost me on that one. He's all-in.

Everything that makes a straddle different from a blind raise does not apply since the player is all-in. The only remaining difference is the number of re-raises allowed, which also doesn't affect the all-in player.

Bottom line, unless the player still has at leat one chip behind, I would rule it a blind raise, not a straddle.

Logged

Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown.But how much does it cost to knock on wood?

Thank you Dave. This is exactly how I feel. If we call it a straddle, the "straddler" should be able to get an option to raise. Since he is all in and cannot raise, he isn't really straddling, he is all in blind. Not sure if Nick realizes that this makes a difference in a limit game, like I mentioned, because it allows the betting round to go 5 bets rather than the standard 4 bets when there isn't a straddle. If the "straddler" cannot use his "option" it should not be a straddle.

First of all, the odds on a player having the exact amount necessary for a straddle are remote. I disagree with both of you because you are restricting the same action from any player that might have slightly more than the straddle, but not enough to complete a full raise. Example: What if the UTG player had 25 instead of 20...would you allow a straddle? If so, why? What's the difference?

A straddle is nothing more than a "blind raise" before cards are dealt. I've never seen anything in writing that insists that a straddle can only be executed if that player can reopen raising when the bet returns to him. You can't look at your cards and then straddle...so I see no reason for preventing others from raising, if they desire.

First of all, the odds on a player having the exact amount necessary for a straddle are remote. I disagree with both of you because you are restricting the same action from any player that might have slightly more than the straddle, but not enough to complete a full raise. Example: What if the UTG player had 25 instead of 20...would you allow a straddle? If so, why? What's the difference?

A straddle is nothing more than a "blind raise" before cards are dealt. I've never seen anything in writing that insists that a straddle can only be executed if that player can reopen raising when the bet returns to him. You can't look at your cards and then straddle...so I see no reason for preventing others from raising, if they desire.

Nick -

I agree with your point that the chance of someone having exactly 2 big blinds under the gun are remote, and even more remote that he'd chose to say "Straddle" rather than "Raise".

Yes, a straddle is nothing more than a blind raise, with the opportunity to re-raise.

My point is, if he does not have additional chips to exercise that opportunity to re-raise, then his blind raise is just that - a raise, not a straddle.

Some of your other points are just completely wrong.

How does our decision restrict others who may have slightly more than 2 big blinds?

If he has 25 instead of 20? Yep, allow a straddle. Sure, it defies good strategy, but certainly valid. The fact that such a partial re-raise would not re-open the raise opportunity to those that called is irrelevant.

Prevent others from raising? How does the straddle prevent others from raising?

You've never seen anything that insists that a straddle can only be executed if that player can re-open raising when the bet returns to him? Me neither. That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that to straddle, the player must have at least one chip behind, so he has an option to raise, even if that raise is too small to re-open betting to players that merely called the straddle.

« Last Edit: February 03, 2017, 08:00:25 AM by Dave Miller »

Logged

Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown.But how much does it cost to knock on wood?